BULLOCK STOLEN

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 51, Issue 261, 18 August 1931, Page 7

BULLOCK STOLEN

OFFENCE BY A FARMER.

TERM IN REFORMATORY.

(Special to "The Guardian.") AUCKLAND, August 17. A middle-aged farmer named Daniel Sisley was sentenced at the Supreme Court, Auckland, to reformative detention lor eighteen months on a charge ol stealing a bullock at Te Teko, Day or Jflenty. . Mr Winger, who appeared for the prisoner, said that in the report of the probation officer there was only the suggestion -of a suspicion, against the accused. Counsel had residents of Wliakatane who would give iSisley the highest reputation. He had been connected with ail kinds of public movements, and had been the repository of thousands of pounds without there having been the suggestion of dishonesty. . : His Honor, Mr Justice Smith, said he thought the report of the probation oihcer was a bad one—entirely against .the prisoner. His Honor advised counsel to read the copy that had been handed to, the Court. Mr Singer, after having perused it, and, with the permission of the Court, handed it to the prisoner to read. Counsel remarked, "Well, it is not of the 'very best." > His Honor: That is an optimistic view of it. ■ Mr Singer then called Ronald Robertson, baker, of Te Teko, C. F. Stewart, formerly a farmer, and A. H.

Jameson, farmer, who said prisoner had borne a high character in the Whakatane district. Mr Singer reminded the Court that the jury had strongly recommended the accused to mercy. His Honor, addressing the prisoner, said the report of the probation, officer was one of the most scathing he had seen. The report charged prisoner with a number of things, including, in July, 1928, trying to defeat, his creditors "after a sale of stock. Mr Singer: He denies that, your Honor. . ,'. . His Honor said it was so stated in the report. The report went on to charge the prisoner with associating withUhe worst type of persons in the district, and stated that his wife arid family had turned him out owing to his bad moral habits. Prisoner had been warned by the police to leave the district, Or'he would be locked up. He left the district, and then returned. According to the probation officer the prisoner was the real instigator in the shooting of the cattle, and certainly lent his rifle for the purpose. Whether it was true that prisoner instigated the natives to shoot the cattle, it was certainly his rifle had been used in the present case. There was also a serious matter—and proof of it—namely, that right throughout the hearing of the case the prisoner tried to interfere with the Crown witnesses, either by threats or offers of rewards. A bribe was offered to a little boy, and one Of the women was offered £25 for clothes. There might be nothing wrong, but there was always the suggestion that there was an attempt to make them change their evidence. There was, however, definite proof that he had tried to interfere with the course of justice, and that was pretty clear evidence of guilt. Mr Singer said the prisoner had been punished for that, at Whakatane. His Honor: For offering a bribe to a boy ? Mr Singer: Yes, he was fined £lO at Whakatane. His* Honor said he must deal with the case as it stood. It was a serious thing for one, white settler to arrange with natives to shoot the cattle ot another white settler. There was no doubt in his Honor's mind that prisoner must be sentenced to a term of imprisonment. , - . Prisoner interrupted and denied the statements in the .report of the probation officer. Statements as to his relations with Maori girls were slanders on the girls. It was an occasion when he 'was manager of a Maori girls hockey team. He denied that he had been warned, by the constable. His Honor said in arriving at the proper sentence he was excluding the report of the probation officer, except as to interference, with tlie course ot justice. It was a serious matter, and he must deal with the case accordingly. Prisoner would be' sentenced to reformative detention for a period not exceeding eighteen months.